Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the officials and thank them for their presentation. There are several aspects to this debacle, into one of which we will not get today, although we will have to deal with it in the future, that is, how 400,000 tickets were sold for an event which had not yet been licensed.

That probably reflects on the Oireachtas more than it does the council, but it is the main issue that needs to be resolved in due course.

To address a point raised by the Chairman, I do not take lightly the inference in Mr. Keegan's letter to committee members that my being a member of the GAA in east Clare would somehow impact negatively on the way I do my business in the Oireachtas. It is objectionable that Mr. Keegan would raise an issue like that in a communication with the committee. If he believes for one moment that my interest in this matter relates to the GAA, he is entirely wrong. We had the GAA attend one of our meetings in recent weeks to address the issue of broadcasting and its deal with Sky. Being members of the GAA does not make us conflicted when being critical of its actions where warranted and appropriate.

My concern in this matter relates to my role as Opposition spokesperson on transport and tourism, the impact on the hotel, restaurant and catering sector in this city, the potential loss of €50 million in revenue, the 70,000 inbound tourists due to attend the event, the 400,000 ticket holders in this State and elsewhere and the ratepayers and property taxpayers who play an integral role in the life of this city and contribute to Dublin City Council's revenue. These are the only issues motivating me. I will not get into a debate on personalities, but if Mr. Keegan's belief is that our only motivation is to feather the GAA's nest, I would first refute that belief and then suggest that it raised more questions about his judgment than it does about mine.

Following on from the Chairman's comments about Mr. Keegan's interest in understanding what might conflict us, has Mr. Jim Keogan told Mr. Keegan that his family home is in the area and his son lives there? Is that something that Mr. Keegan has only become aware of in recent days?

Mr. Keegan discussed the granting of a licence for three concerts. He indicated that he had a conversation with someone working with the promoter and that a fourth concert had been on the table. At the bottom of page 8 of his statement to us, he asserts that the council has been supportive of special events in Croke Park and has not allowed the number to exceed the overall number permitted by An Bord Pleanála by more than one. He considers a breach of one event to be normal. However, permitting the three concerts would have been a breach of three. Had Mr. Keogan acted on Mr. Keegan's conversation with Aiken Promotions, the CEO would have been prepared to allow four concerts. We have gone from one to four, yet Mr. Keegan claims that five would have been a major departure for the council. It is difficult to comprehend how five would be a major departure when four would not.

Notwithstanding the origin of the suggestion, it is difficult to understand how Mr. Keegan can assert that 160,000 people in the curtilage of that zone on Saturday and Sunday evenings would not have amounted to a significant intensification of the property's use. He was concerned that some percentage of those with tickets for the Monday and Tuesday shows might have congregated in the area, but he was prepared to accept all of the 160,000 congregating there. I fail to see how this could have worked.

Mr. Keegan stated that a judicial review was an option but, on behalf of Dublin City Council, the ratepayers and property taxpayers of this city, he would spend more of their money to defend his original decision vigorously because he was so confident in it. That is questionable.

Mr. Keegan expressed regret about this situation but took no personal responsibility for it. He stated that three concerts were permitted, but that considering options for the remaining two was a decision for the promoter and the artist and they must accept the consequences. Does he believe that he should accept some consequences on behalf of the ratepayers, property taxpayers, the tourism sector and Ireland's image as a destination for large-scale entertainment events at a time when, as he is aware, efforts are being made to win a rugby world cup event for this city? Such events benefit the city's economy.